Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Fitzgerald (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Katie Fitzgerald
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable ice hockey player. Was a removed prod with the mistaken idea that playing in a national league in itself was notable. Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. And they also fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY which requires women's players to play in the World Championships/Olympics. DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Subject fails to meet NHOCKEY, and no evidence she meets the GNG beyond scanty references in routine sports coverage (and damn little enough of that) explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Almost all sources in the article primary ones. I'd be very interested in what notability criterion the deprodder thinks "playing in a national league" satisfies.   Ravenswing   17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH. Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Fails both GNG and NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is poorly sourced - too reliant on primary sources - but she clearly passes WP:GNG as an all-star NWHL goaltender. WP:NHOCKEY doesn't matter if WP:GNG is passed, and is behind the times for women's hockey.       amongst others. SportingFlyer  talk  03:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG needs to be met. There must be significant in depth sources about the player. Pretty much all the links you posted are blogs or passing mentions which don't meet the requirements to show notability and pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is met, especially with the Sporting News, hockey writers and Daily Herald articles. There's a good amount of coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  16:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. You seem (as with your other votes on similar AfDs) to believe that the mere existence of sources meets the GNG.  Blogposts do not count.  Press releases do not count.  Quotes from, or interviews of, the subject do not count.  Fleeting mentions do not count.  Links to iTunes pages (!!) do not count.  Routine sports and match coverage do not count.  Primary sources do not count.  There could be ten thousand of these sources, and they still would not satisfy the GNG.   Ravenswing    19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't. I tend to vote delete on most articles. The Daily Herald is a feature piece specifically on her. The Hockey Writers piece discusses her as the playoffs MVP and goaltender of the year, as does the Sporting News, which is a very good source for this league. The "routine" coverage is about her performance in the league's championship game, such as or  and this transactional article is also a feature on her  and she's mentioned multiple times here . None of these are primary, or press releases, or blog posts. What fleeting mentions I've presented are from great sources. You can choose your opinions, but you can't choose your facts - and the facts show she clearly satisfies WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  00:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The refs noted by sportingflyer above are good enough for her to pass gng. Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Thanks to I can see through the low level publications and appreciate the quality coverage sheshas taken. She definitively meets the basic standards of WP:NHOCKEY-- which does not require that candidates must have played at the olympics. Caballero / Historiador⎌ 11:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly what in WP:NHOCKEY does she meet? Being an all-star goalie in the NWHL does not meet that standard.Sandals1 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * She doesn't meet anything in WP:NHOCKEY - it's irrelevant here, what's important is that she passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant when user Caballero1967 uses WP:NHOCKEY as the basis for his keep vote with no mention of meeting WP:GNG. There's clearly no editorial consensus that WP:GNG is met, so please don't act like there is. Papaursa (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not implying there's consensus, even though as you know I think she passes WP:GNG very clearly. I'm saying there's no question WP:NHOCKEY isn't met, so only WP:GNG matters, which I think is implied by the above vote.

SportingFlyer  talk  22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no "implied" about the above vote--it explicitly says "She definitively meets the basic standards of WP:NHOCKEY" and makes no mention of WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't believe the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: per above. Women's hockey doesn't get media coverage, and that's just why SNG's don't favor it. No kidding. Also maybe some people here need a reminder on the GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the language. Doesn't matter if a person got fleeting coverage on the tablets from Mt. Sinai, that doesn't meet the GNG.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.